Vol, i1i

13 MACCABEES, BOOKS OF 193 15) and inconsistencies (418); it shows, too, great zest in the interpretation of providence (4*! 5” ete. ). In short, it bears every mark of being a mythical tale founded perhaps on some no longer definitely ascertainable historical occurrence. ‘There is no- where else any mention of Philopator having either visited Jerus. or persecuted the Jews. But in Jos. (c. Ap. ii. 5) there is a story of a somewhat similar character connected with the reign of Ptolemy vil.

Physcon. That monarch, it is said, punished the Alexandrian Jews for their loyalty to Cleopatra by putting them in fetters and throwing them to intoxicated elephants. As the animals, however, turned against Physcon’s friends and killed many of them, and as the king saw a terrible visage which forbade him to injure the Jews, he abandoned his intention, and the Jews kept a feast in commemoration of the event.

This appears to be the older as it is also a simpler version of the same floating tradition, which may have been based upon an actual but unsuccessful attempt on the part of some monarch to enter the temple at Jerus. by foree—an attempt which was followed up by an effort to be avenged on the Jews.

But in 3 Mac, which was apparently un- known to Josephus, the reference a the story to an earlier king of Egypt, and the addition of other embellishments, already mark a deviation from the older tradition. According to many scholars (Ewald, Reuss, ete.), the legend is founded upon the attempt of the emperor Caligula to erect his statue in the temple at Jerus. (Jos. Ant. XVIII. viii. 2), and his subsequent persecution of the Jews, the transference of the event to the reign of Ptolemy Iv.

Philopator being due to prudential reasons. ut there is nothing in the work which definitely points to Caligula’s time, and our author does not represent Ptolemy as aspiring to the honours of deity. The one significant parallel to the times of Caligula is the circumstance, vouched for by Philo, that the Roman governor Flaccus Avillius deprived the Jews of the rights of citizen- ship. On the other hand, if the work be referred to this period (c. A.D.

40), the confinement of the Jews in the hippodrome of Alexandria (4᾽}8.) might have been suggested by Herod’s command that his leading opponents should be so dealt with at Jericho (Jos. Ant. xv. vi. 5; BJ τ. xxxiii. 6). But the exact tate of writing remains uncertain. The Greek additions to Daniel are known to the author, who cannot therefore have written earlier than the Ist cent. B.c., but he very possibly lived as late as the Ist cent. A.D.

is design was evidently to cheer and console his co-religionists in a time of persecution at Alexandria. 3. Integrity.—In its present form 3 Mac appears to be incomplete. It begins abruptly (ὁ δὲ Φιλο- adrwp); in 13 there is a reference to ‘the plot’ (τὴν ἐπιβουλήν) of which no previous mention has been made; and in 2” allusion is made to the king’s ‘before-mentioned’ companions, although the fore- roing part of the work is silent regarding them.

ut it is unnecessary (with Diihne, Ewald, Fritzsche) to suppose that it is a mere fragment; the loss of an introductory chapter would explain all (Grimm). Fritzsche thinks the title of the book indicates that we have in the extant fragment a sort of rolegomena to a complete history of the Macca- ese Certainly ‘Book of Maccabees’ is a mis- nomer as app ied to the existing work, which professes to deal with a situation considerably anterior to the Maceabman rising. 4. Language.

, ir book bears every evidence of having been written in Greek by an Alex- andrian Jew. The vocabulary is exceptionally rich. Hebraisms are comparatively rare, and never harsh (e.g. ‘thy glorious name,’ 2%; ‘the heaven of heavens,’ 2" ete.) The style, however, is ‘ bom 194 MACCABEES, BOOKS OF MACCABEES, BOOKS OF bastic and involved,’ and even further removed from the category of ordinary prose narrative than is that of 2 Mac, with which it has many points of affinity, such as, e.g.

, the use of τόπος to designate the temple at Jerus., and of ἐπιφάνεια to denote the special miraculous interposition of God, and the love of rhetorical word-painting (1° 45% 5**), It exceeds that work, however, in obscure expres- sions (19: 14-17 981 411), and in straining after poetic effect (118 48 5° 6% 8). The opening words of 5% (ὅσοι γονεῖς παρῆσαν ἢ παίδων γόνοι) form an iambic trimeter, and seem to be a quotation from some Greek dramatist. Some words bear an unusual meaning, 6.9.

διάγειν (18), ἀπρόπτωτος (3.3), κατα- χρᾶσθαι (45); others do not occur elsewhere, e.g. ἀνεπιστρέπτως (15), λαογραφία (2), προσυστέλλεσθαι (23), χαρτηρία (45); and others are very rare, or are used only in late Gr. writings, e.g. ἔνθεσμος (271), φρικασμός (31:7), ἀλογιστία (5%), weyadouepS (6%). The work appears to be more or less coloured by the influence of the Alexandrian philosophy ; compare in this connexion the names (μέγιστος, 19-16 418 722; ὕψιστος, 6?

7°) applied to the Supreme Being, and the distinction made between God and His glory (2°). 5. Use by Jews and Christians.—The book seems to have been practically neglected by the Jews, while the first Cristian reference to it occurs in the Canones Apostolorum, c. 85 (MaxxaBalwy τρία). It is mentioned (ad Dan. 11’) by Theodoret of Antioch (tc. A.D. 457); in the catalogue of Nicephorus (Μακκαβαϊκὰ γ᾽), and in the Synopsis Athanasii apparently as Ilrodeuaixd.

* The work found no acceptance with the Latin Church, and is not included in the Vulg.; but in the Syrian Church it met with considerable favour, as is shown by the existence of an ancient Syriac version, by the respectful allusions of Theodoret, and by the fact that in all probability the cata- logue of Nicephorus had its origin in the Syrian Church. 6. MSS and Versions.—3 Mac is found in most MSS and editions of the LXX.

A Latin trans- lation was first made for the Complutensian Poly- glott, and has since been followed by several others. Many German versions also now exist, among which may be mentioned those of the Ziiricher Bibel, Berlenburger Bibel, Bunsen’s Bibel- werk, and Kautzsch’s Apocryphen u. Pseud- Se sa According to Cotton (The Five Books of Maccabees in English, Oxford, 1832, Introd. p.

xx), the first English version (by Walter Lynne) appeared in 1550, and was with some modifications embodied in a folio Bible issued by John Daye in 1551. D. TV MAcCABEES.—1. Contents. —This, as a philosophical treatise, occupies a unique position among apocryphal books. The writer’s theme is ‘the supremacy of pious reason (=religious prin- ciple) over the passions,’ + and the Judaism which he advocates is distinctly coloured by the Stoic hilosophy.

Although the composition takes the orm of a discourse in which the direct mode of address is adopted (11:7 214. 13° 181), we are not therefore warranted in supposing (with Freuden- thal) that we have here an actual specimen of a Jewish sermon. The style is too abstruse for an ordinary congregation, and it never became the habit to base discourses upon philosophical pro- positions instead of Scripture texts. At the same time, the work is not a mere academical thesis.

If it suggests an artificial spirituality rather than the natural outflow of a ie deeply under the *The text reads Μακχαβαϊχὰ βιβλία 3° Πτολεμαῖκά, but Oredner is probably right in substituting καὶ for δ΄. tL) εἰ αὑτοδίσποτός ἔστιν τῶν ταθῶν ὁ ἰὐσιβὴς λογισμός ; 118 gf αὐτοκράτωρ ἰἱστὶν τῶν παθῶν ὁ λογισμός ; 181 τῶν παθὼν δισπότης στὴν ὁ εὐσιβὴς λογισμός.

pawn of religion (Grimm), the writer undoubtedly 1andles his subject with vigour, moral earnest- ness, and a desire to edify his readers (or hearers). These were apparently confined to his co-religion- ists (181 Ὦ τῶν ᾿Αβραμιαίων σπερμάτων ἀπόγονοι παῖδες Ἰσραηλεῖται), whom he assures that in order to lead a pious life they have only to follow the dictates of ‘pious reason.’ After an introduction (11.

132), the author lays down his thesis that pious reason is perfect maste1 of the passions, and expounds this proposition not without dialectic skill. Reason he defines as ‘intelligence combined with an upright life, and holding in honour the word of wisdom’ (1%5),* anu wisdom as ‘the knowledge of affairs divine and human, and of their causes’ (1%). Wisdom is attained through ‘the instruction of the law’ (117), and is manifested in four cardinal virtues, viz.

φρόνησις, δικαιοσύνη, ἀνδρεία, σωφροσύνη (18. A description and classification of the affections, with special reference to the antagonism offered by them to the four cardinal virtues, is also given, and it is shown by examples taken from Jewish history that pious reason is lord of all the affec- tions except forgetfulness (λήθη) and ignorance (ἄγνοια). With this ends the first and more strictly philosophical part of the book (118-318), In the second part (3!

-18"), after a historical review of the tyrannical treatment of the Jews under the Syrian king Seleucus and his son (sic) Antiochus Epiphanes (3!*-4”), the conquering power of reason is further represented as most brilliantly illus- trated in the martyrdom of Eleazar (5-7) and of the seven brethren (8-14!) and their mother (14}}.- 16%).

The writer accompanies his account of the martyrdom of these heroic defenders of the faith with frequent and copious remarks of a religious and edifying nature, and introduces occasionally eae ee reflexions (e.g. 5°) which would ave been more in place in the first part of his work. In 17-18? the author sets down his final impressions regarding the character and signifi- cance of the martyrdoms described by him.

The closing section (18***) ap beats to be an appendix by a Jater hand, but the nature of it indicates that it must have been added at no great interval from the composition of the book itself. Fritzsche and Freudenthal regard the spurious addition as limited to 18°, 4 Mac possesses no value as history. The writer merely appropriates certain incidents from 2 Mae 618-745 by way of illustrating his fundamental pro- osition regarding the supremacy of pious reason.

His delineation of the tortures to which the ‘Maccabean martyrs’ were subjected is even more gruesomely realistic than that of 2 Mac, although the detailed description of the inhumanity of the persecutors serves, of course, to bring out more emphatically the steadfast patience of their victims. He may have had sources of information other than 2 Mac, but there is no evidence that he used as an authority the five books of Jason of Cyrene (2 Mac 27).

While the work does not aim at being a history, it hus nevertheless an importance of its own as a unique example of the way in which Jewish history was turned to account for didactic and homiletie purposes. 2. Language and Style.—The Greek of 4 Mac, although rather laboured, is not so involved or so rhetorical as that of 3 Mac. Owing to the uniformity of the style, which is clear, correct, and genuinely Greek, the work has more of real individuality about it than either 2 or 3 Mac.

Lavish use is made of metaphor and declamation, yet the writer can deftly change his style to * So the Alexandrian MSS. Nand V read: ‘intelligence accom panied by accurate insight (and) choosing the life of wisdom.’ t A has the later form ἀνδοΐω. MACCABEES, BOOKS OF suit his subject. Considerable fondness is shown for words and expressions of a rare, novel, or poetical description. Frequent use is also made of prepositional compounds, 6.9.

ἐπιρωγολογεῖσθαι (2°), ἀντιπολιτεύομαι (41), ἐξευμενίζειν (411); and com- pounds with πᾶν, e.g. πάνσοφος (113), mavyéwpyos (159), πάνδεινος (3.5), πανάγιος (7* 147). Short as it is, quite a number of words seem to be peculiar to the book, e.g. αὐτοδέσποτος (14), μονοφαγία (1537), ἀρχιερᾶσθαι (415), ἀποξαίνειν (6°), ἐμπυριστής (7), μισάρετος (114), κηρογονία (14), ἑπταμήτωρ (167).

With the exception of Jerusalem (Ἱεροσόλυμα) and Eleazar (’EAedfapos), the proper names are written according to the Heb. form, although Hebraistic expressions scarcely occur (cf., however, 1.32 δύξαν διδόναι). Only in a very few passages (2°! 171%) is use made of the LXX. 3. Authorship and Date.—Eusebius (HE m1. x. 6) refers to our book under the title περὶ αὐτοκράτορος λογισμοῦ, and ascribes it to Josephus. In this he is followed by Jerome (de Viris Illustr. ¢. xiii., ὁ. Pelag. ii.

6), Suidas (Lex. s.v. ᾿Ιῴσηπος), and others ; and indeed for long it seems to have been regarded as settled that Josephus was the author. In the editions of his works it occupies the last place, and is inscribed Aa. ᾿Ιωσήπου els Μακκαβαίους λόγος ἢ περὶ αὐτοκράτορος λογισμοῦ. But it exists also in important Scripture MSS of the LXX, and both A and κα call it simply ‘the fourth of Maccabees’ (Maxxafalwy 6’). by wkd of Nazianzus quotes from it without naming Josephus or any one as the author.

Its ascription to the Jewish historian must either have been a pure guess, or the result of confusion between him and some other ᾿Ιώσηπος, whom tradition named as its author, for the testi- mony of Eusebius is quite overborne by the in- ternalevidence. The language and style are utterly different from those of Josephus ; the latter was unacquainted with 2 Mac, while 4 Mac is almost wholly based upon it; the grossly unhistorical statements of 41° 38 5!

17% are inexplicable on the hypothesis that the work was penned by Josephus ; finally, there is about it a flavour of Jewish- Alexandrian puilneaphy, and an enthusiasm for the heroic, which we do not naturally associate with that writer. While the exact date of the book cannot be determined, it seems certain that it must have been written after 2 Mac, from which it borrows, and before the destruction of Jerus., of which it makes no mention.

Grimm would infer from the statement of 41 that Onias was holding the priest- hood for life (διὰ βίου) that the author wrote after the overthrow of the Hasmonwan dynasty, when the life-tenure had been abolished, and from the horror-stricken concern of the Egyptian Jews on hearing of the sufferings endured by the Maccabzean martyrs (14°) that the former were themselves at the time exempt from persecution. This would pare to a date prior to their experiences under aligula (A.D. 40).

Schiirer (H/F 0. iii. 246), on the other hand, accepts as the date of composition the first century after Christ. 4. Aim and Standpoint.—The aim of 4 Mac is by demonstrating the supremacy of pious reason to exhort the Jews steadfastly to adhere to the Mosaic law, and not allow themselves in any particular to depart from it (18), either through fear of suffer- ings or through the subtle attractions of Hellenistic culture.

As an educated Jew acquainted with the exacting demands of philosophic paganism, the writer seeks to show his countrymen how to main- tain their Judaism intact.

aunts about the fatuity of their ceremonial law were levelled at the Jews by the persecutor (5°), and doubtless Ὁ the philosopher as well; but our author reminds his co-religionists of the essential reasonableness of the law even in regard to ritual commands (6555), MACCABEES, BOOKS OF 195 and seeks to show that only through obedience ta its precepts can the Stoic ideal of humanity be realized.

In the concrete examples of endurance unto death furnished by the Maccabean martyrs he sees the perfection of piety (12 1517), and a conclusive proof that in virtue’s cause the Hebrews alone are invincible (915). The writer's own standpoint is formally in- fluenced Ly (ireek philosophy, especially by Stoi- cism, which placed the passions under the sover- eignty of reason, so providing him with his central idea, as well as with the postulate of four cardinal virtues.

In his division and description of the affections, however, he does not so much adopt the position of any of the current Greek philosophies as give to his own treatment a philo- sophie cast. And if he writes from the stand- point of Stoicism, he is none the less true to that of legal Judaism. Wisdom, of which the four cardinal virtues are forms (ἰδέαι), cannot be attained apart from the Mosaic law (1*%"-). It is not reason as such, but pious reason (ὁ εὐσεβὴς λογισμός), i.e.

reason regulating itself by the divine law (15), that he exalts as ruler over the passions. So literal, indeed, is his conception of the Mosaiclaw, that some* on this account maintain the Pales- tinian origin of the book. His philosophy certainly resembles Pharisaism in its advocacy of rigorous legalism, and of ing piety into every relation of life (181). In his doctrine of the resurrection, however, it is not the Pharisaic but the Alex- andrian position that is reflected.

The writer believes, not in a bodily resurrection confined to the Jews, but in the immortality of all souls, the pious entering into blessedness (9° 1718), and the wicked into torment (9° 12" etc.), upon the death of the body. It is also noticeable that he regards the sufferings of the martyrs as a vicarious atone- ment for the sins of the people (6% 17%), and that a Pelagianistic spirit underlies the book in so far as no account is taken of the influence of divine grace upon human reason. 5.

MSS and Versions.—The Gr. text has come down (1) in some Scripture MSS, including A and ἐξ ; (2) in MSS of Josephus; and has been printed under both categories. The best recensionsare those of Fritzsche in his edition of the Libri Apoc. Vet. Test. Greece, 1871, and Swete in the Camb. Septuagint, 1894, 2nd ed. 1899. There is an old Syriac version, ublished by Ceriani in his photo-lithographed Pacaimnile of the Milan Peshitta manuscript of the OT (1876-83).

An English translation by Cotton (The Five Books of Maccabees in English) was pub- lished at Oxford in 1832. Another Fourth Book of Maccabees is mentioned by Sixtus Senensis (Bibliotheca Sancta, i. p. 39) as still extant in manuscript when he wrote (1566). He himself saw it at Lyons, in the library of Santes Pagninus, which soon afterwards perished by fire. It was written in Hebraistic Greek, and began with the words, ‘ After the murder of Simon, John his son became high priest in his stead.

’ Sixtus thinks it may have been a Greek translation of the ‘chronicles’ of the reign of John Hyrcanus referred to in 1 Mac 16"; but, in view of the state- ment he makes as to its contents, it is more likely that the book was ‘simply a reproduction of Josephus, the style being changed perhaps for a purpose’ (Schiirer, HJP I. ili. p. 14). i V MaccaBeEEs.

—This is the title given to an Arabic ‘Book of Maccabees’ printed in the Paris and London Polyglotts, the Arabic text being in both cases accompanied by the Latin translation of Gabriel Sionita. Cotton’s English version is a literal rendering of the Latin. The book purports to be a history of the Jews from the time of Heliodorus (B.C. 186) to the last years of Herod * Langen, Judenthum in Paldstina, p. 80. 196 MACEDONIA MACHAERUS (B.c. 6-42).

It is merely a Hellenistic compila- tion, not always accurate, from 1 and 2 Mac and the writings of Josephus, and is in no sense an independent history. In ch. 12, the only passage which does not directly depend upon these works, the author shows himself singularly ill-informed with regard to certain well-known facts of Roman history. He evidently wrote after the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 (ef. 95 21% 22° 538).

In point of language the book is decidedly Hebraistic, even after being twice translated, although this does not prove that it was originally written in Hebrew. The religious standpoint of the compiler merely reflects that of his authorities. There is also another so-called ‘Fifth Book of Maccabees’ in the great Ambrosian Peshitta, but it is nothing else than a translation of the sixth book of Josephus’ de Bello Judaico. LireratcR#.

—The principal authorities upon points of literary and textual criticism have been named in the body of the article. Among older commentaries may be mentioned those of Drusius on 1 Mac, and of Grotius on 1, 2, and 8 Mac in Critici Sacri ; and that of Michaelis on 1 Mac (Uebersetzung der 1 Mace.-B.'’s mit Anmerk., Gotting. ἃ. Leipz. 1778). The most complete modern comm. is that of Grimm on 1, 2, 3, and 4 Mac in the Kurzgef. Exeget. Handb. series, 1853-57.

Since that date there have appeared commentaries by Keil on 1 and 2 Mac, 1875; Bissell on 1, 2, and 3 Mac in Lange-Schaffs Commentary, 1880; Rawlinson on 1 and 2 Mac in the S; er's Comm. 1888 ; Zockler on 1, 2, and 8 Mac in his Die Apokryphen des Alten Testaments, 1891; Fairweather and Black on 1 Mac in the Cambridge Bible for Schools, 1897; Kautzsch on 1 and 8 Mac, and Kamphausen on 2 Mac in Die Apokr. u. Pseudepigr. des AT, 1898. W. FAIRWEATHER.

MACEDONIA (Maxedovla=the land of the Maxe- δόνες, who, themselves akin to the Doric branch of the Greeks, formed the core of a mixed nationality, to which Illyrian, Pzonian, and Thracian elements contributed along with numerous Greek colonies) was in antiquity the common name for a region in the centre of the Balkan peninsula, separated for the most part by natural boundaries of mountain- ranges from Thessaly on the south, Ilyria on the west, Mcesia on the north, and Thrace on the east.

[Ὁ contained the river-basins of the Haliacmon (Vistritza), the Axius (Vardar), the Strymon (Struma), and the Nestus (Kara-su); and it pre- sented along its A‘gean shore the three prongs of the great Chalcidian peninsula between the Thermaic and Strymonic gulfs (now named from Saloniki and Rendina).

This region, with its mountainous interior rearing a hardy population, its well-watered and fertile plains, and its extensive fringe of seaboard encouraging colonization and commerce, obtained a political significance and exercised a paramount influence for two centuries over the fortunes of the ancient world, such as could hardly be expected from its earlier history or from its size and apparent resources.

The steps of this development, the growth and unifying of its military power—the aggressive polic and gradual ascendeney of Philip over the Greek republics— the supremacy of Alexander, whose world-empire reached from the Adriatic to the Indus—its parti- tion after his early death among his leading generals, out of which sprang the Seleucid empire in Syria, the rule of the Ptolemies in Egypt, and a series of violent changes in the occupancy of the throne of the Macedonian motherland—and the final struggles, which, culminating in the battles of Cynoscephale (B.

C. 197) and Pydna (B.c. 168), brought Macedonia under the power of Rome— hardly fall within the province of this article, except in so far as they helped to shape the Macedonia which confronts us as an Oriental power at the outset of the Maccaban history, and as a Roman province in NT. The history of the conflict with Epiphanes and his successors opens (1 Mac 11:3) with a striking description of the achievements of Alexander the Great, and of the division of his dominions upon his death.

‘There (11) heis said to come forth from the land of Chittim (Xerrielu), and at 6? to have been the first reigning as king over the Greeks ; while at 8°, in the account of the power of the Romans whereof Judas had heard, there is mention of their having discomfited and overcome Philip (V.), and Perseus who is called king of the Chittim (Κιτιέων, see KITTIM). At 2 Mac 8” the term Macedonians seems applied to the Syro-Macedonian warriors in the service of the Seleucid kings.

On the application of the epithet to Haman in the LXX Ad. Est 16", and its use in 16%, see HAMAN. The Macedonia of NT is the Roman province of that name. For a time after the Roman victory at Pydna (B.C. 168) it was allowed to retain some measure of independence and self-government ; but its unity was broken up. It was divided into four districts, in which republican federative leagues were modelled on the system of the Greek confederacies.

The first embraced the region between the Strymon and Nestus; the second, that between the Strymon and Axius with the Chaleidian peninsula; the third, that from the Axius to the Thessalian Pencius; and the fourth, the mountain lands towards the north-west. Their capitals were, respectively, Amphipolis, Thessa- lonica, Pella, and Pelagonia. [For details of the arrangement, see Liv. xlv. 29, 32; Mommsen, Hist. of Rome, ii. p. 508f.] But in B.c.

146 dependence was exchanged for subjection ; the country received a definitive provincial organization ; and from that date began the Macedonian era, henceforth used on inscriptions and coins. The new province included portions of Illyria and Thessaly, and Thessalonica ecame the headquarters of the Roman government, although it and some other towns retained local autonomy.

It was administered by a proprtor with the title of proconsul ; and there was us associated with it the province of Achaia or Greece, which was administered by a legate [on the relation of Greece as a Roman province to Macedonia, see Mommsen, Hist. of Rome, iii. p. 271, note]. On several occasions in NT we find them mentioned together; but Macedonia takes pre- cedence (Ac 192, Ro 15%, 2 Co 93,1 Th 17:8).

It was traversed by the great Roman military road, the Via Egnatia, and afforded a fruitful soil for the missionary labours of St. Paul,* who amidst no small opposition and with various success sowed the Bade of the gospel, and founded Churches in some of its chief towns, Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea (Ac 16-175), and subsequently revisited them on his way to and from Greece (Ac 197 20"), when several of his Macedonian converts accom- panied him to Troas (Ac 20°).

His warm interest in the Churches which he had planted bore fruit in the Epistles addressed to Thessalonica and Philippi; and their readiness to receive the word, to love the brethren, and to minister to his personal needs, are heartily acknowledged and commended (1 Th 158 88 49, 2°Th 134, Ph 410-16. 16), Wiiam P. DIcKsoN. MACHAERUS (Maxaipois, Grecized from 20, Tamid iii. 8, sometimes 8230 and 133d) is con- fidently identified (originally by Seetzen, Reisen durch Syrien, ii. 330, iv.

378) with Mkawr (but see Jastrow, s.v.), an extensive collection of ruins on the spur of a hill overlooking the Dead Sea from the east. It was first fortified by Alexander Janneus (Jos. Wars, vu. vi. 2), but was taken from his grandson by Gabinius and demolished (ib. I. viii. 5; Ant. XIV. v. 4). Herod the Great fortified it (Jos. Wars, vu. vi. 1, 2), and used it as one of his principal residences. On his death it * Ramsay (St. Paul the Trav. p.

203) suggests that the ‘man of Macedonia’ who was seen by Paul in a vision (Ac 169) is to be identified with Luke himself, who meets the apostle at Troas. MACHBANNAI became the property of Antipas, being situated in nis tetrarchy. When Awtipas divorced his wife, the daughter of Aretas, king of the Nabateans, she desired to be sent to Machaerus, which is incon- sistently described (Jos. Ant. XVII. y. 1) as on the borders of the dominions of the two kings, and as subject to Aretas.

The inscriptions do not reveal the exact frontier at the time; but there is no evidence in support of the latter statement of Josephus. He is probably in error, sepedally as the context implies that the queen chose her place of retieat with a view to avail herself of its proximity to her father’s dominions for the pur- ose of escape. Shortly afterwards John the 3aptist was imprisoned and put to death in the dungeons of Machaerus (ib. XVII. v.

2; Mk Θ᾽} is not against this, as Keim, Jesus of Nazara, iv. 218, note 1, shows). The fortress, of whose im- portance Tiiny speaks (Hist. Nat. v. 16, 72), was arrisoned by the Romans until A.D. 66 (Jos. Wars, Il. xvii. 6), when they withdrew to avoid its investment. But six nee later it was re- covered (ib. Vil. vi. 4), and finally demolished by Lucilius Bassus. Lireraturg. — Tristram, Land Moab? (1874), 253 ff.; Biedeker, Socin, Pal. 317; G. A. Smith, Hist. Geog. 569f.; Ritter, Erdkunde, xv.

io 577f.; Schtrer, HJP 1. 1i. 250f.; Keim, Jesus of Nazara, Eng. tr. ii. 329 ff.; Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah, i. 120, 658 ff. R. W. Moss. MACHBANNAI (3222; B Μελχαβανναί, A Μαχα- eel Gadite who joined David at Ziklag, 1 Ch 12%,